Top Clicks

Search the Scripture

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

The King James translated this verse to say “by the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” The difference is that the Jehovah’s Witness will use the KJV to prove that Peter is speaking of two different identities, rather than calling Jesus God.

The only difference in the two is in one verse Peter uses God and the other he uses Lord. Grammatically translating into English is not always as simple as word for word in the same order. The same is true in translating other languages such as Spanish into English.

The preposition “of” (too) brings both God and Savior together in verse 1 as well as Lord and Savior together in verse 11. Peter is literally referring to Jesus as God in verse 1.

But, in verse 2 Peter changes it up and actually does refer to God the Father and Jesus our Lord. “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.”

So, what does Peter believe about Jesus? He believes the same as what Thomas did in John 20:28 “My Lord and my God!”

Do not allow anyone to tell you that Jesus was just a man or just a prophet or another God among many gods. Jesus is God just as much as the Father and the Holy Spirit is God.

I will not say that the King James translated it wrong but the way it is translated it could be used as an argument either way. But, in the original there is no argument.

Why is it so important to understand the divinity of Jesus Christ? We are living in a time that many are teaching that all religions worship the same God but by a different name. I can argue against that point but let’s keep one thing clear – Jesus Himself said that there was no other way to get to the Father except through Him.

I saw a survey recently that said that over 40% of Christians believe that all religions worship the same God. We have to study the Word of God or there will be many who think that they know what is right and will be dead wrong. Eternity is at risk.

The Mormons teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers and that one day they will become a god as Jesus did.

The Jehovah’s Witness teach that Jesus is just another god.

Islam teaches that Jesus will return but will be submissive to Mohammed’s teachings.

It is very important to know your Bible and know the God of the Word. If Jesus does not return soon it may be illegal for me to write such things. This teaching is what got many Christians killed in Rome in the early centuries. History has a way of repeating itself.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

There are not many who will disagree that John was writing about Jesus, referring to Him as the Word. But, there is a group of people who will disagree with the translation. According to the Jehovah’s Witness and their translation, it should read “and the Word was a god.”

It is upon their translation of this verse that they have established that Jesus was one of many gods, of which they can be too.

This may go a little deep, but hold on. It works.

I received a paper from a Jehovah’s Witness which gave other bible translations which I had never heard of who translated “a god” in John 1:1. The authors of Should You Believe in the Trinity? on page 28 explained that in the Greek, given the grammatical circumstance, the translator has the freedom to use the article “a” if they feel that it fits with Theos (the greek word for God), even when the article “a” is not written.

Therefore, by their own argument, this verse can not be used to prove whether Jesus was God or a god. It’s up to the translators!

What about John 1:18 where the sentence begins with Theos with no definite article, just like John 1:1. Why did your translators choose to change their rules?

If they translate “a god” in John 1:1 why did they not translate it the same way in John 1:6 or John 1:12 or John 1:13? Not only are these verses in the same book, written by the same author, but they are also in the same chapter. Should we pick-and-choose with God’s Word which rule we use?

Again, let’s see how scripture explains itself. In John 20:28 Thomas makes this declaration, “My Lord and My God!”

Here is where it gets really crazy. Although most of the New Testament was written in Greek with the word Theos used for God, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone through and picked out which ones they want to translate as Jehovah and which ones they translate as god. Of course it was John 1:1 and John 20:288 they chose not to translate the word Theos as Jehovah. Something screwy going on here!

In Isaiah 9:6, a verse which most every accepts is about Jesus, He is called the “Mighty God”. The answer they gave me is that this is not Jehovah, just a god. But what about Jeremiah 32:8 where Jehovah is also called the “Might God”? If both Jesus and Jehovah are “Mighty God” what separates them?

And, I can not forget about Matthew 1:23 which says “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” This is a quote from Isaiah 7:14. Immanuel does not mean “a god with us.”

In Luke 16:19-31 Jesus tells a story that seems to cause a few people some problems. It’s a story of a rich man and a poor man who both die. The poor man is in the presence of God and the rich man ended up in torments.

The problem is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that anyone not right with God will just disappear. The soul ends. Therefore, they have a great problem with this story and call it a parable.

Let’s look at some definitions. This story in Luke has to be a parable, fable or a true story.

1. A parable is a principle explained through a true life happening. Of the other parables Jesus told, all could have happened. Could there have been a prodigal son? Could a woman have lost a coin? Can a farmer sow seed and it end up on four types of soil? Can a man sell everything he has to buy land that has treasure on it? Yes to all. Thus, a parable uses a real life situation, and we know that Jesus often spoke in parables.

2. A fable uses a story that can never happen in order to teach a principle such as Esops Fables. If this story in Luke is a fable this would be the only fable Jesus told. It would be totally out of character for Him. Fables were not His method.

3. Could this be a true story? For most parables which Jesus taught from was usually noted by Jesus or the author of that particular book as being a parable. If it was a series of parables the author would signify the first as a parable and the rest just fell into that category. This happens in Matthew 13, Mark 4 and Luke 15. The question is, does Luke 16:19-31 fall into the same parable list which began in chapter 15 since there is a break in 16:14-18? Just an interesting thought.

So, what is the conclusion? If it were a fable then it could not have happened, yet it would make those who claim it to be a fable prophets with spiritual insight, understanding it to be a fable when there is no record of Jesus telling fables. There is no evidence that Jesus ever associated Himself with anything false.

If it were a parable then it was told as if it really could have happened. If it were a true story, then we know that Jesus would have been the only one who could have known of this happening. Therefore, unless this is a fable it must have been a true happening or could really happened!

Could communication happen between the rich man and Abraham? It is the spirit world. What details do we have? Jesus would know better.

Was judgment passed on who was rich and who was poor? Nothing is mentioned about their spiritual state, righteous or evil. What we do know is that the heart of the rich man was not righteous but self-centered. They were not judged on what they had but what was in their heart that was revealed through their lives.

Is there a hell? If there was not then why would Jesus even mention it? What purpose did it serve? And, why would he associate with falsehood? He did not associate with falsehood nor would He. Therefore, Jesus gave us some insight as to what hell is like.

Jeremiah 23:5-7 Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Yehovah-Tsidkenu)

I was told by a Jehovah’s Witness that this “Jehovah” did not represent God, but a god. So, let’s dig into this verse.

Here Jesus is given the name Yehovah-Tsidkenu, the Lord our Righteousness. It is true that there are other names with “Yehovah” (Y-H-V-H) in it, but they are places representing what God had done such as Yehovah-Jirah, the name Abraham gave to Mt Moriah when God provided him a lamb (the Lord our Provider) and Yehovah-Nissi, the name Moses gave the location where Israel won a battle as long as he held up his rod (the Lord our Banner).

It is true that Jerusalem was called Yehovah-Tsidkenu in Jeremiah 33:16, but again this was a place. Jeremiah 23:5-7 is the only reference of a person other than the God of Israel named Yehovah. But this is not just any other person. This is the Son of God.

Therefore, it would seem that this prophecy of Jesus in Jeremiah refers to Him as God.

An interesting note, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX), called the septuagint, translates Jehovah (Y-H-V-H) as Kurios which is the word for Lord in the New Testament rather than the Greek word Theos which was translated as God.

Interestingly, the NWT, the Jehovah’s Witness Bible, chose to translate Theos instead of Kurios as Jehovah on the occasions referring to God the Father and god on others when it referred to Jesus. Their only translation rule is contextual, which makes it convinient for them to keep things within their doctrine that Jesus was another god.

By the way, Jehovah or Y-H-V-H are not found in the New Testament at all.

An example of this would be John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My (mou) Lord (kyrios) and (kai) my (mou) God! (theos)” But, they would not translate this as their choice of word for God, Jehovah. That would mean that Thomas recognized Jesus as God so they translated it as “god” which makes Jesus a smaller god but one of many gods.

So, is there anything wrong with a differing opinion? There is when it is rewriting scripture to make it support your believe rather than rewriting your belief to support scripture. There is when it supports the idea of many gods which is also against scripture. Deuteronomy 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord Himself is God; there is none other besides Him.

Jesus is not another god, but is God as Thomas declared and is worshipped.

I want so much to use this blog to share the excitement of treasures often overlooked or unnoticed. Yet, while I and others dwell in the love for the Word of God and His working in people’s lives through history, there are those who try to undermined our attempts.

The Jehovah’s Witness group declares that they are the only ones right and we are so wrong that even our Bible is wrong. They have their own translation.

I have not spent years studying them but there are those who have. Below are some links that I would like to offer you – questions to ask a Jehovah’s Witness. You will have to copy and paste them into your browser address box:

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. NKVJ

What is Paul trying to attribute to Jesus by calling Him the “firstborn over all creation?” Was he saying that Jesus was the first to be created?

Rather than try to guess or state the very first thing that comes to mind, shall we use the scriptures?

Psalm 89:27 says Also I will make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. According to verses 3, 18, & 35 this verse is talking of David. Was David the first king of Israel? No. Was David the firstborn in his family? Not only is that a no, but he was the youngest. Then, what is being ascribed to David in this verse? I think that the second half of that verse clarifies it “the highest of the kings of the earth.”

This term, firstborn, is used again in Colosians 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Was Jesus the first to be raised from the dead? No. Elisha raised a boy from the dead. Jesus raised several from the dead before He was killed. So, how is He the firstborn?

This verse explains that as firstborn from the dead He has preeminence or surpassing all others.

1. Jesus was the first to be forgiven of sin? Think about it. Paul says that Jesus became sin for us who knew no sin. Therefore, Jesus died with our sin but rose with our sin still in the grave.

2. Jesus was the first to be born without sin? Adam and Eve were created, not born. And, because of the virgin birth, Jesus was not born into the sin of his father, Joseph.

3. Or, could the focus be on the first as in “the greatest?” Jesus is the greatest of those who rose from the dead and those who will rise. Jesus is the greatest over all creation.

Keep in mind that according to Exodus 13:2 all firstborn belong to God. For a father to call his son the firstborn over all his possessions did not make his son a possession but the one who will one day inherite the possessions.

There is a group who has rejected all bible translations and have come up with their own translation. How convenient. They call themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their explanation of this verse is that Jesus was the first to be created. That He was a created being, God’s first creation.

To be the first born over all creation does not make Him a created being any more than it makes me a bicycle because I was the firstborn in my family and was given responsibility as a teen over the upkeep of the family bikes.

There was a greek word used during the time that Paul wrote this which meant first created (proto ktizo). Rather than use this, he chose to use (proto tikto) first born. It is true that first born can be used as chronological order in a family. But, it is also used as a title of preeminence. Jeremiah 31:9 says …for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn. Ephraim was not the firstborn of any family yet he is called the firstborn.

Because of the overwhelming evidence of scripture, I can not buy into the idea that Jesus was created. The very next verse, verse 16, says that all things were created by Jesus, created through Him and for Him. So, they want me to believe that God created His Son, Jesus, and then this created being created everything else? Does that lessen the glory of creation in believing that a created being created rather than God, who knows no beginning or end?

Paul said in Philippians 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. If Jesus could be equal with God, do we make God less to consider that a created being could be equal with God? I think so. How could a creation be equal with his creator who has always been? This goes back to the lie that Satan told Eve about eating the fruit and being like God.

Let’s keep in mind that the context of Philippians 2 is Christ in the flesh of man. In the end, Jesus will be worshipped by all. Only God is worshipped. Philippians 2:10-11 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Therefore, as “firstborn” not “first created” and one who is to worship, Jesus is God and has always been according to John 1:1

To find awesome iPad and iPhone apps for the Christian Walk and Ministry go to n8slist.com